11/14/2018 07:49 AMPosted by
Yrithe
Sadly, be the time she reaches the Horde, she's kind of a back alley dumpster version. Crazy and illogical. But at least she looks cool.
https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/screenshots/normal/792337.jpg
We were talking about Delaryn.
Sira didn't even want to be a leader, apparently, lol. But about her, how is she crazy or illogical as a warfront commander? I haven't played it on PTR, I'm just curious if something came up in her dialog.
She spends 24/7 screaming about people abandoning her and that's why she wants to help her murders murder her friends and family. Tyrande abandoned her, Maiev abandoned her, Elune abandoned her.
It's absurd because she acts like she's Kerrigan left to the Zerg by Mengst. But no one abandoned her, they LOST the war. The only person who abandoned anyone was Anduin, who ordered the evacuation of Kalimdor at the first sign of Horde aggression instead of sending reinforcements.
...
Pyrrhic victory, as they say. So yes, we don't consider it an equalizer. Not to mention the War of Thorns was not just the burning of Teldrassil, that was just the final point. However the thing in it's entirety saw the Alliance lose multiple zones; Ashenvale, Darkshore and finally Teldrassil. Battle for Lordaeron only saw the loss of Tirisfal for the Horde. The equivalent would've had to been something like, Hillsbrad, Silverpine AND Tirisfal falling at the end in an equal war campaign.
The two sides lost the same number of zones: one. There is now fighting in other zones, but if the war tables are to be believed it is the Alliance that is largely on the counter-offensive. This is supported by what is happening with the next patch, with fighting in Darkshore and Dar'Zalor.
The Alliance and Horde both took out a zone and a capital. It's true that the Alliance failed in Anduin's declared victory condition in Lordaeron, but that's because his stated goal was the removal of Sylvanas. But they still razed the zone and forced the Horde to blow up their own city. The Horde didn't manage to get the win they were looking for either.
Don't tell me taking out Undercity (not to mention reclaiming Stromgarde) haven't been Alliance fantasies since Vanilla. In all that time, did we see a single thread with Horde players pining to destroy...Teldrassil?
At the cost of massive casualties. As I wrote about previously, in this thread, the developers are trying to show that the Alliance lost massive numbers of troops there, so much so that had Anduin been in a modern military he would have been bounced out for negligence. Blizzard, as I noted with the Twitch announcement, also have stated it was an Alliance loss. When combined with the Blizzcon statement means that that this was a null-event (loss for both parties).
*holds bow in air*
WE ARE FREE!
Night Elves: YAY BURN DOWN OUR TREE AGAIN!
That's how long it will take. That long.
11/13/2018 05:08 PMPosted by
Saiphas
As much as we joke about populations not mattering, it clearly does when blizzard is framing the cost of BfL to be sooo huge to the Alliance forces.
11/14/2018 08:08 AMPosted by
Saiphas
At the cost of massive casualties. As I wrote about previously, in this thread, the developers are trying to show that the Alliance lost massive numbers of troops there, so much so that had Anduin been in a modern military he would have been bounced out for negligence.
Because they might have to start
calling up their reserves in a world war? That doesn't really say desperation to me. I mean, the Horde doesn't even have a whole army's worth of farmers waiting in reserve, but no one's worried.
11/14/2018 08:23 AMPosted by
Zuleika
11/13/2018 05:08 PMPosted by
Saiphas
As much as we joke about populations not mattering, it clearly does when blizzard is framing the cost of BfL to be sooo huge to the Alliance forces.
11/14/2018 08:08 AMPosted by
Saiphas
At the cost of massive casualties. As I wrote about previously, in this thread, the developers are trying to show that the Alliance lost massive numbers of troops there, so much so that had Anduin been in a modern military he would have been bounced out for negligence.
Because they might have to start calling up their reserves in a world war? That doesn't really say desperation to me. I mean, the Horde doesn't even have a whole army's worth of farmers waiting in reserve, but no one's worried.
The Horde is the aggressor, not the Alliance. Additionally, you'll note I am against the entire faction war
because getting down to just farmers is a
REALLY BAD thing at the state level. World War I ruined even the victors because of this kind of deathcount. Yet both powers will have to be returned to status quo.
1 Like
But Saiphas, countless people have told me wars are good for the economy.
Including this furry dude over here in a waiters smock.
11/14/2018 08:36 AMPosted by
Darethy
But Saiphas, countless people have told me wars are good for the economy.
Including this furry dude over here in a waiters smock.
*Insert Pedant hat* Sure if you are the U.S. who's losses overall in both personnel and infrastructure of minuscule compared to the rest of the world's powers during the conflict. Wars
can be good for the economy, provided the burden share is extremely disproportional (with certain caveats that at a certain threshold even disproportionate burden shares can tax the state waging war). :-P
Because they might have to start calling up their reserves in a world war? That doesn't really say desperation to me. I mean, the Horde doesn't even have a whole army's worth of farmers waiting in reserve, but no one's worried.
The Horde is the aggressor, not the Alliance.
What does that have to do with whether they have enough troops? The Alliance just has much deeper reserves to call on.
Additionally, you'll note I am against the entire faction war because getting down to just farmers is a REALLY BAD thing at the state level. World War I ruined even the victors because of this kind of deathcount. Yet both powers will have to be returned to status quo.
I doubt the people writing this are as well-versed in real military history as you are. We all know status quo is going to happen.
Also, I was in Northrend on an Alliance alt a couple of days ago and I noticed that even there, they talk about how the soldiers are mostly peasants who will freak out at the sight of "exotic visitors" (or however they put it). Sounds like the Alliance may have called up the farmers before.
11/14/2018 08:44 AMPosted by
Zuleika
...
The Horde is the aggressor, not the Alliance.
What does that have to do with whether they have enough troops? The Alliance just has much deeper reserves to call on.
Additionally, you'll note I am against the entire faction war because getting down to just farmers is a REALLY BAD thing at the state level. World War I ruined even the victors because of this kind of deathcount. Yet both powers will have to be returned to status quo.
I doubt the people writing this are as well-versed in real military history as you are. We all know status quo is going to happen.
Also, I was in Northrend on an Alliance alt a couple of days ago and I noticed that even there, they talk about how the soldiers are mostly peasants who will freak out at the sight of "exotic visitors" (or however they put it). Sounds like the Alliance may have called up the farmers before.
We did for Northrend, it lead in part to the SW troubles in cataclysm (see wesfall and redridge). Additionally, the Lost Honor cinematic frames the calling up of soldiers as a big deal, despite player antipathy to population levels. The aggression point is key because the Alliance is fighting for its right to survive, in essence the writers gave the "survival in a cruel world" theme to the Alliance, and are trying to show the cost of this war to the Alliance much more than for the Horde.
11/14/2018 08:44 AMPosted by
Saiphas
11/14/2018 08:36 AMPosted by
Darethy
But Saiphas, countless people have told me wars are good for the economy.
Including this furry dude over here in a waiters smock.
*Insert Pedant hat* Sure if you are the U.S. who's losses overall in both personnel and infrastructure of minuscule compared to the rest of the world's powers during the conflict. Wars can be good for the economy, provided the burden share is extremely disproportional (with certain caveats that at a certain threshold even disproportionate burden shares can tax the state waging war). :-P
Absolutely, but the major powers at play often mistake the sudden economic growth of a few with the growth of a whole. Conflict drives innovation as people like to say and the spoils of war go to the victor, and so folks think by pillaging alone we actually can ramp up our progress into some new golden age. When in reality all that happens is we introduce a lot of complicated factors into our lives and if any one of them goes wrong it could send us into an economic death spiral that would take decades to claw our way out of.
People with the same mentality as Tong often wind up becoming 'Broken Window' economists, it's practically a plague at this point.
11/14/2018 08:54 AMPosted by
Darethy
11/14/2018 08:44 AMPosted by
Saiphas
...
*Insert Pedant hat* Sure if you are the U.S. who's losses overall in both personnel and infrastructure of minuscule compared to the rest of the world's powers during the conflict. Wars can be good for the economy, provided the burden share is extremely disproportional (with certain caveats that at a certain threshold even disproportionate burden shares can tax the state waging war). :-P
Absolutely, but the major powers at play often mistake the sudden economic growth of a few with the growth of a whole. Conflict drives innovation as people like to say and the spoils of war go to the victor, and so folks think by pillaging alone we actually can ramp up our progress into some new golden age. When in reality all that happens is we introduce a lot of complicated factors into our lives and if any one of them goes wrong it could send us into an economic death spiral that would take decades to claw our way out of.
People with the same mentality as Tong often wind up becoming 'Broken Window' economists, it's practically a plague at this point.
While true, the reason the U.S. was able to sustain its economic growth following WWII was a mixture of good public policy (the GI bill) as well as the U.S, being the only real game in town for consumer goods after the end of the War.
11/14/2018 09:01 AMPosted by
Saiphas
While true, the reason the U.S. was able to sustain its economic growth following WWII was a mixture of good public policy (the GI bill) as well as the U.S, being the only real game in town for consumer goods after the end of the War.
Something that the Alliance doesn't really have the luxury of falling back on, since in the nightmare hellscape that is Azeroths politics there's a relatively small number of nations without an aversion to leaning on each other for anything, even among allies.
I actually REALLY appreciate the depiction of Westfall after Northrend, I played a human through there, Redridge, and Duskwood because it had a remarkably interesting look into how the war had strained Stormwind to the point of breaking, and how local groups like the Defias were exploiting Varians far from perfect, but not abysmally terrible rule.
Unfortunately it's painfully obvious in those zones that a lot of content was cut for the Horde.
11/14/2018 09:07 AMPosted by
Darethy
11/14/2018 09:01 AMPosted by
Saiphas
While true, the reason the U.S. was able to sustain its economic growth following WWII was a mixture of good public policy (the GI bill) as well as the U.S, being the only real game in town for consumer goods after the end of the War.
Something that the Alliance doesn't really have the luxury of falling back on, since in the nightmare hellscape that is Azeroths politics there's a relatively small number of nations without an aversion to leaning on each other for anything, even among allies.
I actually REALLY appreciate the depiction of Westfall after Northrend, I played a human through there, Redridge, and Duskwood because it had a remarkably interesting look into how the war had strained Stormwind to the point of breaking, and how local groups like the Defias were exploiting Varians far from perfect, but abysmally terrible rule.
Unfortunately it's painfully obvious in those zones that a lot of content was cut for the Horde.
Just making sure I understand, you mean that the Alliance content was cut so that the Horde content could be prioritized yes?
11/14/2018 09:14 AMPosted by
Saiphas
11/14/2018 09:07 AMPosted by
Darethy
...
Something that the Alliance doesn't really have the luxury of falling back on, since in the nightmare hellscape that is Azeroths politics there's a relatively small number of nations without an aversion to leaning on each other for anything, even among allies.
I actually REALLY appreciate the depiction of Westfall after Northrend, I played a human through there, Redridge, and Duskwood because it had a remarkably interesting look into how the war had strained Stormwind to the point of breaking, and how local groups like the Defias were exploiting Varians far from perfect, but abysmally terrible rule.
Unfortunately it's painfully obvious in those zones that a lot of content was cut for the Horde.
Just making sure I understand, you mean that the Alliance content was cut so that the Horde content could be prioritized yes?
Yeah, there was a lot of talk about this in Cata's post mortum. I loved Cata's world building, felt the factions desperately needed to redefine their identities, but it was such a pain from a development standpoint that I also understand it's unlikely to ever happen again. Alliance notably feels unfinished in places compared to the Horde because they were done second and then the developers realized they actually needed to do endgame content.
I like Warfronts for the reasons they give us an excuse to update the world, the core Azeroth continents have always been more interesting for me, but we've had precious little reason to go back.
11/14/2018 09:18 AMPosted by
Darethy
11/14/2018 09:14 AMPosted by
Saiphas
...
Just making sure I understand, you mean that the Alliance content was cut so that the Horde content could be prioritized yes?
Yeah, there was a lot of talk about this in Cata's post mortum. I loved Cata's world building, felt the factions desperately needed to redefine their identities, but it was such a pain from a development standpoint that I also understand it's unlikely to ever happen again. Alliance notably feels unfinished in places compared to the Horde because they were done second and then the developers realized they actually needed to do endgame content.
I like Warfronts for the reasons they give us an excuse to update the world, the core Azeroth continents have always been more interesting for me, but we've had precious little reason to go back.
Definitely, darkshore for instance feels lacking, with over half the content reused
11/14/2018 07:35 AMPosted by
Yrithe
...
On the lead up to the War of Thorns, the alliance players got a brand new leader to rally around, you followed her from her battlefield commission following the massacre at Astranaar all the way up to the final defense at Lor'danil. She was everything you would want in a leader, brave, tatical, inspiring, and even some humor from time to time. On the Horde side of that combat it was pretty much Go There, Do This, Kill That... save that you were taking orders from the Big Cheese herself. Forsaken players not no investment from the War of Thorns and there wasn't anything leading up to Lordaeron.
That would have been awesome if she then didn't get raised as Forsaken, turn against her people, and become a new lapdog for the woman who slaughtered her and her people in the War of Thorns.
So, in actuality, it was the Horde that got a brand new leader who is, using your own words, "everything you would want in a leader, brave, tatical, inspiring, and even some humor from time to time".
What happened to her after her death does not erase what she was before it. And much remains to be seen.
Summermoon is not inspiring to Forsaken players, we do not know who she is. We do not know if in undeath she is brave, or tactical, she is DEFINITELY not humorous in her current iteration. I won't say she'll be a bad character off the bat, but i'd rather have a Lordanian human then a Kaldorei ranger.
11/14/2018 09:47 AMPosted by
Darethy
but i'd rather have a Lordanian human then a Kaldorei ranger.
Honestly yes. Even a Stormwindian human or Kul Tiran.
The random elves going emo and turning on their people who they died to protect to serve their murderer is just.... bad. Someone should get a fly swatter and smack Blizzard.
I’m really torn because I want the Night Elves to have vengeance in a purge style guerrilla war in the dark, creepy forests of Darkshore and Ashenvale. I want it to be a miserable time for both Elves and Forsaken with ultimately the elves winning back their territory, but nothing so contrived and crappy as a curb stomp for either side. Both should feel good they did their best on both sides.
Look people. I can understand you have been badly treated by the clowns writting this 10th rate story, and I can even relate to the desire of "punching back VERY hard". However, you must too understand that some Horde players may resent this not because they think this is unfair from a narrative perspective, but because it's pretty hard to digest that we - as players absolutely unable to control the idiocy the writers cook for our faction narrative- should be subjected to "punishment" for something we frankly didn't ask, we hated and that instead of making us hyped to play basically made us dislike the whole game.
We're on the same side people, don't forget that... it won't be Ion nor Afriasiabi the ones that will pay for a deffect narrative, but people just like you.
11/14/2018 10:46 AMPosted by
Ariël
Look people. I can understand you have been badly treated by the clowns writting this 10th rate story
Your Indian name would be "Dances With Forum Bans". Speaking the truth isn't allowed here!